3 ms·

I've seen people on twitter ranting about "Longtermism" before. What an unfortunate name - in the article they try to make a distinction between "longtermism" a

I've seen people on twitter ranting about "Longtermism" before. What an unfortunate name - in the article they try to make a distinction between "longtermism" and "long-term-thinking", but that distinction is very clearly lost on others who are content to paint with a broad brush when criticizing the EA movement. Buying malaria medicine and nets actually do save the lives of people Right Now. Can't it just be sufficient to accept that people have different utility functions that might subtly conflict, but are still good? I might care about saving existing lives in the world, you might care about saving existing lives in your county, someone else might care about saving potential lives 100 years from now, etc.

JoshTriplett 5y ago
You're getting dangerously close to suggesting that people should actually have agency in deciding which problems they care more about, and put their resources towards solving those problems. Surely the article couldn't be wrong; are you saying there are people other than a few wealthy easily demonized individuals who have priorities that society as a whole isn't paying attention to yet? In all seriousness: yes, it ought to be sufficient to accept that different people have different utility functions, and that there are options other than "solve a problem collectively as a society" and "don't do anything about this problem at all". There needs to be a path to solve problems before those problems rise to broader attention. For some reason, the article seems to be attempting to lump EA/x-risk/etc thinking together with those ignoring or downplaying climate-change. In practice, I've seen many folks who care about existential risks speaking very actively about needing to do something about climate change sooner rather than later.
- shrimpx 5y ago
  To be fair to the article, it does extensively quote prominent people in this field. Some of the most scandalous content in that article, to my taste, is direct quotes from Ord and Bostrom.

JoshTriplett 5y ago

You're getting dangerously close to suggesting that people should actually have agency in deciding which problems they care more about, and put their resources towards solving those problems. Surely the article couldn't be wrong; are you saying there are people other than a few wealthy easily demonized individuals who have priorities that society as a whole isn't paying attention to yet? In all seriousness: yes, it ought to be sufficient to accept that different people have different utility functions, and that there are options other than "solve a problem collectively as a society" and "don't do anything about this problem at all". There needs to be a path to solve problems before those problems rise to broader attention. For some reason, the article seems to be attempting to lump EA/x-risk/etc thinking together with those ignoring or downplaying climate-change. In practice, I've seen many folks who care about existential risks speaking very actively about needing to do something about climate change sooner rather than later.

shrimpx 5y ago
To be fair to the article, it does extensively quote prominent people in this field. Some of the most scandalous content in that article, to my taste, is direct quotes from Ord and Bostrom.